21ENVIS Bulletin Himalayan Ecology, Vol 26, 2018

FORESTS OF UTTARAKHAND: DIVERSITY, DISTRIBUTION, USE PATTERN AND CONSERVATION

Vishwambhar Prasad Sati*1 and S. K. Bandooni2

1Department of Geography and Resource Management, School of Earth Sciences, Mizoram University, Aizawl, Mizoram, India 2Department of Geography, S.B.S.E.C., University of Delhi, Delhi, India

*Correspondence: vpsati@mzu.edu.in

ABSTRACTThe Uttarakhand Himalaya contains rich forest diversity. Forests are distributed along the altitudinal gradients from broad leaf deciduous forests to pine, mixed-oak, coniferous forests and alpine meadows. The rural people are largely dependent on them for their livelihoods and they have traditional practices to conserve forests. This paper aims to examine diversity, distribution, use pattern and conservation of forests in Uttarakhand. The study is based on data gathered from secondary sources and through participatory observation method. We have gathered time series data on vertical distribution of forests, district wise forest cover and change and forest land use, and analyzed them. Further, we have described use pattern and conservation of forest in Uttarakhand. Data show that a large geographical area of the Uttarakhand Himalaya (61.32%) is under forests. Forest diversity varies vertically and horizontally and area under forest is different from district to district. Forest plays a significant role in enhancing livelihoods, income and economy of the local people and the state, respectively. The study suggests that even forest cover is increasing in Uttarakhand, however we need to further conserve them sustainably. A sustainable use of forest resources will manifest rural economy more viable.

Keywords: Forest diversity, Distribution pattern, Sustainable use, Conservation, Uttarakhand.

INTRODUCTIONForests play an important role in sustaining life of both human and animal. It is a major life supporting resource and one amongst the major sources of livelihoods in mountainous region. Rural people of Uttarakhand are directly dependent on forest resources (CEDAR 2010) for fuel-wood, fodder and food and they practice community forestry, maintained by village community forest councils commonly known as Van Panchayat which was introduced in 1920 (Phartiyal et al., 2006). Forests not only provide fire-wood, fodder and wild fruits, but also provide leaf litter for manuring crop fields (Singh et al., 2004). In Uttarakhand, about 38% green feeds are obtained from fodder trees and 31% fodder is obtained from grasslands (Rawat et al., 2012). The marginal farmers rear livestock in the grasslands temperate and subtropical and gather fodder from tree leaves (Singh et al., 2009). Besides, a variety of medicinal plants also grow in all the altitudinal zones.

Uttarakhand state has 7,869 floral species (SFR 2005). The plant diversity is so high from the valleys to the alpine meadows (Kumari et al., 2009). It has eight forest types out of total 16 forest types existing in India (Champion et al., 1968). There are over 12000 Van Panchayats, which cover 15.1% area of the total forest area. Besides, out of the total forest area, 69.2% forest is under forest department, 14.8% under civil forests and the rest belong to private forests

(UEPPCB 2004). Uttarakhand’s forests are distributed along the altitudinal gradients vary from tropical to subtropical, temperate and alpine. Broad leaf deciduous forests are found in the Tarai and Doon plains. Pine forest is densely and extensively distributed above the valleys and mid-altitudes, mixed-oak forest lies in the temperate zone and conifer forest lies in cold climate zone. Further, grasslands–subtropical, temperate and alpine are extensively found along these gradients. Economic viability of these forests is substantial. The local people conserve forest using traditional methods which not only benefit carbon sequestration but also enable restoration and conservation of forests, meadows and biodiversity together with local socio-economic upliftment (Rao et al., 1999; Maikhuri et al., 1997; Saxena et al., 2001). Common property resources are community forests, pasturelands and water resource, which rural people use and conserve together (Joshi 2006).

The state of Uttarakhand is bestowed with rich and diversified forest resources with their high economic viability. In spite of being economically viable and a substantial option of livelihoods of the rural people, the forests of Uttarakhand are largely unused. It is because of the remoteness and inaccessibility of forest areas. Further undulating and precipitous slopes hinders its more sustainable use. On the other hand, forest fire, overgrazing, lopping of trees for fodder and firewood and removal of leaf and wood litters from the forest floor, are the major anthropogenic activities, which

22 ENVIS Centre on Himalayan Ecology

are affecting plant diversity in the Uttarakhand Himalaya (Malik et al., 2016). Forest fire is the major disturbance for forests expansion although used for the growth of grasses in grazing land (Kumar et al., 2005). Mounting population pressure on forests has depleted a substantial forest cover, which is resulted in landslides and flashfloods. This has led threatening for species and many of them are on the verge of extinction (Ram et al., 2004).

The main objective of conducting this study was to examine diversity, distribution, economic viability, use pattern and conservation of forests of Uttarakhand. It further studied that how the abundant forest resources can be used sustainably so that the fragile landscape can be restored and the rural people can harness forest products to carry their livelihoods sustainably.

METHODOLOGYTHE STUDY AREA The Uttarakhand Himalaya having 53,483 km2 geographical area, stretches between 28o43’ N-31o28’ N and 77o 34’ E- 81o03’ E (Fig. 1). Out of its total area, 93% is mountainous mainland, of which, 19% area is under permanent snow cover, glaciers and steep slopes. Due to physical constraints, trees cannot grow in these locations. Uttarakhand can be divided mainly into four physiographic zones–the Greater Himalaya, Middle Himalaya, Shivalik ranges and Doon and Tarai regions. Climate varies from sub-tropical to temperate and frigid cold with temperature ranging from sub-zero to 43oC. Average annual rainfall is 1550mm. The recorded forest area stands for 34,662 km2, which is 61.43% (MOA 2012) of its geographical area. Of which reserve forest constitutes 71.08%, protected forest 28.51% and unclassified forest covers only 0.41% area. Per capita forest cover is 0.248 ha. It shares 3.15% of India’s forest area. A study carried out by the Forest Research Institute Dehradun (FRI 2015) states that Uttarakhand has less genetic diversity of Deodar as it is

Fig. 1. Map showing location of the Uttarakhand HimalayaFig. 2. Graphic representation of vertical distribution of forests in Uttarakhand

0.66 in comparision to 0.9 in Europe and Nepal. In terms of pine and oak forests, genetic diversity is also less.

Data collection and analysis This study was carried out employing qualitative approach. Data on forest diversity, distribution and use pattern were collected from secondary sources and through participatory observation method. The Forest Survey of India data of 2015 and Land Use Statistics, the Ministry of Agriculture, Government of India (GOI) data of 2001 and 2015 were gathered appropriately. These data are related with vertical distribution of forests, district wise forest cover/change, area under tree species and forest land use. I visited the entire Uttarakhand Himalaya several times to study diversity, distribution and use pattern of forest and compare them with the data of secondary sources. Further, the gathered data were analyzed qualitatively and supported by suitable graphs.

RESULTSForest diversity and distribution Diversity and distribution of forest species in Uttarakhand Himalaya vary according to the altitudinal gradient (Sati 2006), from <500 m to >4,000 m (Table 1). Floral diversity is the lowest in pine forest whereas it is the highest in mixed-oak forest. Tropical deciduous forest and coniferous forest have substantial floral diversity. In mixed oak forest, dominating species are oak itself Tilonj, Kafal, Bhamore, Dal Chini and Burans. In pine forest, pine is single species and it does not allow other trees to grow. There are a number of species of same genera in coniferous forest among them dominating species are deodar, fir, spruce and Ringal (small bamboo). Tropical forests such as Sal and Shisham are widely distributed in Tarai, Doon valley and Shivalik regions (<300 m). Other tree species in this region are Khair, Semal, Kanju, Sissoo and Haldu. Bushes and shrubs are also found in this region. Total area under these forests is about 2,826 km2. Forests distributed between 300 and 1100m are characterised by mixed tropical forests with bushes and scrubs. These forests occupy 4,018 km2 areas. Pine forests are densely distributed between 1,100 and 1,800 m and possessed 10024 km2 areas. Mixed oak forests are found between 1800 and 2800 m with high biodiversity. Coniferous forests are found between 2800 and 3400m and beyond of it, vast alpine pasturelands are found (Fig. 2 & 3).

23ENVIS Bulletin Himalayan Ecology, Vol 26, 2018

Fig. 3. [A] Tropical broadleaf deciduous forests in the Rajaji National Park near Dehradun [B] Subtropical pine forests in Jaharikhal, Pauri [C] Mixed oak forests and coniferous forests in the Kedarnath Valley [D] Alpine Meadows in the Kedarnath Valley

The highest forest area (41.35%) is found between 1000 and 2000m followed by forest lies between 2000 and 3000m (23.18%). Forest area between 500m and 1000m is 16.57% while the lowest forest area (0.08%) is found under >4000m. Forest area <500 m is 11.56% whereas 7.14% forest is found between 3000 and 4000m. In terms of forest types such as very dense, medium dense and open forests, the highest areas is under medium dense forest (56.11%) followed by open forest (24.47%) and then very dense forest (19.61%). Very dense forests lie between 500 and 3000m while medium dense forests are located from <500 to 4000m. In terms of open forest, the highest area lies between 1000 and 3000 m.

Table 1. Vertical distribution of forest cover in Uttarakhand (Area in km2)

Altitude zone VDF MDF OF Total

km2 (%)

<500m 548 1732 546 2826 11.65

500-1000m 1035 2189 794 4018 16.57

1000-2000m 1727 5477 2820 10024 41.35

2000-3000m 1345 3074 1202 5621 23.18

3000-4000m 99 1126 506 1731 7.14

>4000m 0 4 16 20 0.08

Total 4754 (19.61%)

13602 (56.11%)

5884 (24.47%) 24240 100

Source: Based on SRTM, Digital Elevation Model, State Forest Reports of India, 2015Figures in parenthesis are the % of forest area

Area under Tree SpeciesFigure 4 shows that the Himalayan dry and moist temperate forests have the highest area i.e. 39.02% followed by pine with 29.61% and tropical dry and moist deciduous forests (26.25%). Area under alpine dry and moist scrub is 4.98 and plantation forest covers 2.7%.

Fig. 5. Geographical area and forest cover in 2001 and 2015 (Land Use Statistics, Ministry of Agriculture, GOI 2001 and 2015)

Fig. 4. Area under tree species (Source: SFRI 2015)

District wise geographical area and forest coverGeographical area and state and district shares of forest wereanalyzed. Area wise, three districts–Chamoli, Uttarkashi and Pithoragarh have the highest geographical area in Uttarakhand (Fig. 5). Pauri, Nainital, Tehri, Almora and Dehradun districts are medium in size whereas Champawat, Rudraprayag, Bageshwar, Haridwar and Udham Singh Nagar (USN) are the smallest districts in area. I did not notice any significant relationship between districts’ geographical area and forest cover. For example Chamoli district is the biggest in area where as its area under forest is only one-third. Uttarkashi and Pithoragarh have the same situation. In contrast, Champawat district is the smallest in geographical area however; its forest

24 ENVIS Centre on Himalayan Ecology

area is two-third. Proportion of forest cover is also high in Bageshwar district.

In the meantime, when we look into the state share of forestin these districts, Pauri, Nainital, Uttarkashi and Chamoli districts have the highest share. Meanwhile, state share of forest in USN, Haridwar, Champawat, Rudraprayag and Bageshwar districts is the lowest. Other districts Dehradun, Almora and Tehri have medium share of forest area. It shows that the biggest is the district’s size, higher is the state share of forest.

Share of state’s forest area and forest at district levelPercentage share of state’s forest area and share of forest at district level was analyzed using data of 2001 and 2015 (Table 2). Out of the total state forest area, Pauri, Nainital and Uttarkashi districts had the highest area under foresti.e. 13% each in 2001. Chamoli had 11%, Tehri had 9% and Pithoragarh had 9% forest area. Haridwar and USN had the lowest state forest area share i.e. 3% each. Other districts had 5% and 6% state’s forest share. Further, district share of forest cover was observed and changes were noticed during the period 2001-2015 in Uttarakhand. Nainital district had the highest forest area (70.67%) followed by Champawat district (67.04%), Pauri district (61.34%) and Bageshwar district (60.69%). In terms of the lowest forest area, USN had 19.91% followed by Haridwar (24.92%), Chamoli (33.39%) and Uttarkashi (38.32%). Other districts had between 25% and 60% forest (2015). Uttarakhand state had 45.32% forest. Fig.6 shows forest cover change (percentage of district’s forest area) between 2001 and 2015. Four districts of Uttarakhand have

DistrictPercentage share of state’s forest area Percentage share of forest at district area

2001 2015 2001 2015

Pauri 13 13.5 58.9 61.3

Nainital 13 12.4 73.1 70.7

Uttarkashi 13 12.7 38.3 38.3

Chamoli 11 11.1 32.2 33.4

Tehri 9 8.9 56.7 59.2

Pithoragarh 8 8.7 28.6 29.7

Almora 6 6.5 47.6 50.4

Dehradun 6 6.6 48.1 51.9

Bageshwar 5 5.6 57.8 60.7

Champawat 5 4.9 63.7 67

Rudraprayag 5 4.7 58.1 56.9

Haridwar 3 2.4 25.9 24.9

USN 3 2.1 30.3 19.9

Table 2. Percentage share of state’s forest area and percentage share of forest at district level

Source: Land Use Statistics, Ministry of Agriculture, GOI 2001 and 2015

received decrease in forest cover from 34.2% (highest) in USN to 1.99% (lowest) in Rudraprayag. Forest cover has decreased in Haridwar district by 3.92% and similarly it has decreased by 3.34% in Nainital district. The highest increase in forest cover was noticed in Dehradun district (7.8%) followed by Almora (5.88%), Champawat (5.24%), Bageshwar (5.08%), Tehri (4.45%), Pauri (4.04%), Chamoli (3.79%) and Pithoragarh (3.39%). Uttarakhand as a whole received 1.26% increase in forest area. Data on forest land use were analyzed (Table 3). In Uttarakhand, three types of forest land use: dense forest, open forest and shrubs are found. Time series forest land use data of 2001 and 2015 were gathered from SRTM digital elevation model and I analyzed them comparing two data.

Fig. 6. Forest cover change (percentage of district’s forest area); (Land Use Statistics, Ministry of Agriculture, GOI 2001 and 2015)

25ENVIS Bulletin Himalayan Ecology, Vol 26, 2018

A large part is covered by dense forest which is above 80% followed by open forest. Meanwhile, shrub’s area is very little. In terms of changes in forest land use, dense forest has decreased by 3.5% and area under shrubs also decreased by 48%. However, open forest increased by 19.71% during the reported period. I have analyzed district wise levels of forest cover high, medium and low (Table 4). In state share of forest cover, four districts – Pauri, Nainital, Uttarkashi and Chamoli have high level while Haridwar and USN have low level. Other districts have medium level of state share. In terms of percentage of district’s geographical area, Nainital, Champawat, Pauri and Bageshwar have high level meanwhile; Haridwar and USN have low level. Other districts have medium level.

Types 2001 2015 Change (%)

Dense forest 19,023 18,356 -3.5

Open forest 4,915 5,884 +19.71

Shrubs 598 307 -48.7

Total 23,938 24,240 +1.26

% of geographical area 44.76 45.32 +1.25

Table 3. Forest land use (area in km2)

Source: Based on SRTM, Digital Elevation Model, State Forest Reports of India, 2015

(A) Percentage of state’s forest area

Indices Levels Districts fall under each indices

>10 High Pauri, Nainital, Uttarkashi and Chamoli

5-10 Medium Tehri, Pithoragarh, Almora, Dehradun, Bageshwar, Champawat and Rudraprayag

<5 Low Haridwar and USN

(B) Percentage of district’s geographical area

>60 High Nainital, Champawat, Pauri and Bageshwar

30-60 Medium Tehri, Rudraprayag, Dehradun, Almora, Uttarkashi and Chamoli

<30 Low Pithoragarh, Haridwar and USN

Table 4. District wise levels of forest cover (2015)

Source: SFRI, 2015

Fig. 7. [A] Women carrying oak leafs (major fodder) in Gairsain [B] Resin is extracted from pine trees in Jakholi [C] Amanla, wild fruit grows in the valleys and mid-altitudes [D] Kafal, wild fruit grows in temperate zone along with mixed oak forests

Forest use patternAbout 70% of the economy is dependent on agriculture,livestock and forest in Uttarakhand. At the meantime, therural people of Uttarakhand are substantially dependent onforests for fuel-wood, fodder and food/fruits (Sati 2006),because the remote villages do not have much support ofliquid petroleum gas (LPG) and fodder. Forests providefodder in the forms tree leafs and grasses from both subtropical and temperate grasslands. People use them throughsending livestock in the forest area and collecting grassesand tree leafs from forests for stall feeding. Availability ofgrasses and fodder leaves have great implications on milkproduction. I observed that the areas where temperate and

sub-tropical grasslands are extensive and fodder leafs, mainlyfrom mixed oak forests, are abundant, milk production issubstantial. The areas of mountainous mainland that fallsunder temperate forests are rich in fodder and consequentlymilk production in these areas is high. Pine and oak leafs arealso used to make animal beds and manure. Firewood is usedfor cooking food and warming house by about 90% ruralpeople. It is generally obtained from pine and oak trees, whichare extensively found in the mid-altitudes and the highlandsrespectively 1000-2400 m. It is collected from dry or deadtrees mainly by women. Cutting of young trees for firewoodis prohibited. During summer, the rural people gather fuelwood and stall them for the winter season when the highland

26 ENVIS Centre on Himalayan Ecology

region receives snowfall. Timber is used for making houses and furniture. It meets the need of constructing houses and making furniture for household uses after getting permission from the Van Panchayat. Non-timber forest products in the form of a number of wild fruits are abundant. There are seasonal wild fruits with high nutrient value and plenty. During summer, Kafal (Fig. 7) Hansole and Kilmode and during winter Bhamor and Bhatmoya grow. People eat Bedu and Timila as both fruits and vegetables. Resin extracted from pine trees. It has multiple uses and Uttarakhand state is number one in resin production in India. Oak bark is used for making Agricultural tools and it is produced largely from Uttarakhand.

Conservation of ForestThe state of Uttarakhand has a long and rich history of conserving forest through applying indigenous and modern knowledge. As, livelihoods of a large group of people is dependent on forest products, they are more aware towards conservation of forests. Until today, people of Uttarakhand worship a number of plant species such as oak, Peepal and sacred groves during various occasions. As a result, it has a vast forest cover of vary valuable tree species.

Uttarakhand state has been conserving forest through establishing Van Panchayat, an old and only form of conserving forest in India. A substantial forest area comes under Van Panchayat in Uttarakhand and the rural people use and conserve them. Every village has its own forest area under Van Panchayat (total number in the state is 7348). Besides, village people help the forest officials in conserving forest.

Uttarakhand is a land where the world famous Chipco Movement started in the 1970’s. Chipco means hugging the trees. The state government (then Uttar Pradesh) ordered cutting of large-scale temperate forest from the hills of Uttarakhand. The local people, whose livelihood was dependent on the forest for fodder, firewood and food, opposed illegal cutting of trees. They hugged trees and warned contractors that before cutting trees, you have to cut our heads. This has become a mass movement and the state government was compelled to cancel its venture.

Joint forest management (JFM), another means of forest conservation, was initiated in 1992 when it was a part of Uttar Pradesh State. There are 10107 JFM committees managing about 0.86 million ha (25%) of forest area. About 0.5 million families are involved in these committees and of which, 15,000 families are scheduled tribes (MoEF 2005). Under JFM, employees of State Forest department and office bearer of village assembly work together to conserve forests. Besides, soil conservation department also conserve forest mainly in the degraded land.

DISCUSSIONBoth vertical and horizontal variations in forest cover and its density were noticed in the Uttarakhand Himalaya. We observed

that USN and Haridwar districts obtain the lowest forest cover because these districts lie in plain regions where arable land is more than 70%, and population concentration is high. Two districts of mountainous mainland– Chamoli and Uttarkashi also obtain less forest area. We observed that a large part of these districts fall under perpetual snow cover area and alpine pasturelands therefore, forest cover is less. It was noticed that Nainital district possess the highest area due to large tract of forest and world famous Corbett National Park.We have further noticed the reasons of decrease and increase in forest cover at the district level in Uttarakhand. The three districts where forest cover has decreased are located in the plain region. A large forest area has been transferred for either cultivation or construction of settlements and thus forestland has decreased. In Rudraprayag district, the cause of decrease in forest area during the period was mainly the Kedarnath disaster of 2013, when cloudburst triggered debris flow and flashfloods have devastated the entire landscape. A report from NRSC, ISRO, Hyderabad (2013) states that about 125ha. grassland and 46 ha forest cover loss was noticed in Rudraprayag district due to the said incident. The other reason is that the district has famous highland pilgrimage ‘Kedarnath’ where number of people visit every year. To provide them services - lodging and boarding– the local people construct business avenues along the river valley and for that they cut forest. The other reasons for decrease in forest cover are rotational felling and diversion of forestlands for developmental activities (SFRI 2015). We observed that increase in forest area in Pauri, Chamoli, Tehri, Pithoragarh, Almora, Bageshwar and Champawat was due to out-migration from these districts. Increase in forest area in other districts, and Uttarakhand as a whole, has a number of driver forces; among them Forest Act of India, Van Panchayat and people’s participation in forest conservation are prominent.Changes in forest cover in the state were due to a number of driving forces. Although, a part of Dehradun district i.e. the Doon valley, has received an exodus immigrants after 2000 when it became the state capital yet its mountainous parts received increase in forest cover. Almora, Pauri and Tehri districts noticed exodus out-migration and as a result, forest cover increased. Forest Act of India 1982 has played a significant role in increasing forest area. There are several social groups working actively in conserving forests. All these drivers have manifested in increase in forest cover.

CONCLUSIONThe study revealed that Uttarakhand state has abundant forest resources, which are economically viable and which have high potential for the economic development of the state. However, use pattern of forest products are limited upto the surrounding villages and a number of dense forest areas are unused mainly those are located in the high lands/ remote regions. Forest products: timber and non-timber can further enhance the rural livelihoods, if they are sustainably used. Among the major

27ENVIS Bulletin Himalayan Ecology, Vol 26, 2018

forest use, forest based small-scale industries at village level and sustainable management of forests and grasslands are essential. For instance furniture industry, dairy farming and wild fruits and flowers based processing centres have potential for utilizing forest products sustainably. This can be carried out along with maintaining conservation measures. Pine trees are the most susceptive to forest fire thus prompt and immediate measures are to be taken up. In the meantime, pine is the most economically viable trees.

REFERENCESCEDAR 2010. Centre for ecological development and research,

final report, available at: www.cedarhimalaya.org.

Champion HG, Seth SK (1968). A revised survey of the forest types of India, Government of India Publications, New Delhi.

Joshi BK (2006). Common property resources synergy and perspectives of sustainable management in Garurganga watershed, Indian Central Himalaya. Journal of Human Ecology, 20: 69-75

Kumari P, Tiwari LM (2009). Biodiversity in Uttarakhand Himalaya region. Nature and Science, 7(3): 545-552.

Kumar A, Ram J (2005). Anthropogenic disturbances and plant biodiversity in forests of Uttaranchal, Central Himalaya. Biodiversity Conservation, 14(1): 309-331.

Maikhuri RK, Semwal RL, Rao KS, Saxena KG (1997). International Journal of Sustainable Development and World Ecology, 4(1): 192-203.

Malik ZA, Bhatt AB (2016). Regeneration status of tree species and survival of their seedlings in Kedarnath Wildlife Sanctuary and its adjoining areas in Western Himalaya, India, Tropical Ecology, 4(2): 23-29.

MOA (2012). Land use Statistics, Minstry of Agriculture, GOI Phartiyal P and Tewari A (2006). IASCP Conference Papers,

http://www.indiana.edu.

MoEF (2005). Proceedings of the National Workshop on Joint Forest Management.

Phartiyal P, Tewari A (2006). IASCP Conference Papers, http://www.indiana.edu.

Ram J, Kumar A, Bhatt J (2004). Plant diversity in six forest types of Uttaranchal, Central Himalaya, India. Current Science, 86: 975–978.

Rao KS, Maikhuri RK, Saxena KG (1999). International Tree Crops Journal, 10(1): 1-17.

Sati VP (2006). Forest Resource Management in Mountain Regions: A Case for the Pindar Basin of Uttaranchal Himalaya. Lyonia: A Journal of Ecology and Application, 11(1): 75-84.

Saxena KG, Rao KS, Sen KK, Maikhuri RK, Semwal RL (2001). Conservation Ecology, 5: 14, online http//www.consecol.org./vol15/iss2/art14.

SFRI (2015). State Forest Report of India, Ministry of Environment & Forest, Dehradun.

SFRI (2005). Forest survey of India, Ministry of Environment & Forest, Dehradun, 140-142.

Singh K, Singh HS (2009). Forage resource development in Uttarakhand Experiences and observations, 1-35.

Singh SP, Tewari A, Jina BS (2004). Climate Change Challenge (3C) and social-economic-ecological, International Journal of Ecological Environmental Science, 31: 45-48.

UEPPCB (2004). State of Environment Report for Uttaranchal, Uttaranchal Environmental Protection and Pollution Control Board, Government of Uttaranchal, Dehradun.